On Thu, December 7, 2006 11:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0800, Lan Barnes wrote: >> I completely agree with what you say. However, I cannot understand how >> abolishing copyright represents "balance." Giving all rights to the >> public, including opportunistic profiteering reproducers, hardly >> represents balance, at least as I understand it. Likewise, the current >> system of perpetual copyright and increasingly draconian punishment (can >> "copyright terrorist enemy combatant" be far from us?) is not balance. >> The >> system is screwed and needs fixing -- but not abolishment. >> >> IIRC my post had the word "balance" repeatedly, sometimes in short >> sentences, once alone. >> >> So you are agreeing with me :-P > > Balance is often a good goal. Fairness too. There are other innovative > ways > to be fair to creators that perhaps you might like: > > (*) Set up a revenue collection system, either voluntary or mandatory, to > compensate producers during the interm transition period to the new > post-copyright system. > > (*) Use same collection system to continue to give out grants to support > ongoing creative works generation. Imagine an NEA or OSDL on steroids. >
Get it through Congress and I'll applaud. No, really ... -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
